There's probably a thousand of these but the purpose of this isn't to say Go is better than Chess just why I personally enjoy playing it more. If you enjoy Chess or some other game more I'm not about to tell you you shouldn't. If you're having fun that's all that matters =)

I've played chess my whole life mostly with two of my sisters. One of my sisters really loves playing with anyone and the other doesn't really like playing with me because I don't play like you're "supposed" to. You see, the problem I have with Chess is it feels so confined and restrictive. You start with all your pieces in two straight lines on the edge of the board. Then the pieces that can really move around are stuck behind pieces that can only move one or two squares at a time in a straight line in front of them. Unless you take a piece so they shift over a square. Joy. It takes forever to get the castles out from behind those bloody pawns. I actually annoy my sister who loves chess because she accuses me of just taking all the pieces and not using strategy. This is not the case. I take pieces so I have some damn space to move. Or in other words because they're in the way. I want a piece on a certain square and I have to plan three moves ahead just to get it there because I have to dodge all the other pieces and work with whatever it's moving pattern is. I understand that for some this is all part of the fun. They love the strategy of that. Fair enough. But for me I've always wished when playing chess that the board was bigger and I could just put the pieces wherever I wanted. When playing Chess I do love the feeling of successfully sneaking up on the king and checkmating him. But whether it's my pieces or my opponents, whittling down the pieces to two or three and then basically chasing them around the board till they're cornered feels terrible and unsporting. And now the big one. Strategy. There's no doubt Chess is strategic. But I find the idea of studying all the moves in a book and thinking "ok this is the best move to start with, and if my opponent does this this is the best move to counter with and this strategy is best to get me checkmate..." is so restrictive. Again I know people like doing this. They love studying all the combos and names of moves and different strategies and then watching their hard work pay off. But for me it's like the game's already been played and people are just going through the motions. It's why my sister gets annoyed when I play her. She works out a strategy and sets things up, like a piece I'm supposed to take, and I just basically ignore it because I'm not wasting my turn doing what my opponent wants. I do understand the appeal of the strategy of Chess. It's all about slowly getting your pieces into position to surround the king and it's exciting in that moment when there's only one move left and if your opponent sees it she can undo all the work you've done up til then but if she doesn't you put the piece down and bam checkmate. The look of surprise on her face when she realises is priceless. This is my favourite thing about Chess. But the cramped nature of the game chaffs me everytime, especially at the start.

I only recently started playing Go and it's amazing. I was a bit intimidated at first because you have to seize the majority of the board whilst holding your opponent off one little stone at a time. To say it's easy for your opponent to get around you and mess with your strategy is an understatement since there's a whole board of little squares and almost no restriction on where you put the stones. But this openness is what I love. You have to think really hard how to block them and surround them and take territory. It's like trying to hold water in your hands and plugging leaks one stone at a time. I love how experimental it is. You can start anywhere. Try any strategy you want. It's never the same. You have to watch your opponent closely to keep up with what she's doing. In Chess your opponent has to sneak up to you before she can come at you from behind and you know wherever your king is that's where she's ultimately aiming. In Go she can come at you from any direction and aim at any of your stones. Or try and take more territory. Admittedly the ending of Go isn't as exciting as Chess can be because the ending is what Chess is all about. Whereas in Go you're building up territory all along so there isn't really a big finish. But I enjoy the gameplay of Go so much more than Chess. And like they say: It's the journey not the destination.

While Go is a great game, I find it an interesting BGG oddity that in this community only does Go seem more popular than Chess. Chess is a highly exacting game requiring years of practice to master, and possibly even some natural ability which cannot be taught. At the higher levels it is not a game of “surprise” and mistakes, but a game of abstract principles and forcing an opponent to bend to your will by deducing necessary moves many moves in advance.

Having played both, to me Go is much more arithmetic and general in its calculation, allowing for slightly more relaxed play styles, more akin to the way Chess was first conceived in the Middle Ages, before changes in the movement rules, especially with regard to the Queen, turned the game from a romantic couples game (as Go remains) into an intense tournament experience.

Go, while fun and competitive at times, seems to me to be like a sophisticated version of the “dot game” popular on restaurant children’s menu (no disparagement intended, really).

Perhaps the above oddity can be explained by the fact that the culture of the BGG community leans towards games that are more strategic than ordinary party games, yet still social enough to enjoy and play somewhat well enough even at first sitting than a game like chess.

I have noticed the same trend in card games, more accessible games such as Spades or the recent game Diamonds being preferred over Bridge, which takes months or years to master.

I dunno. When I read the OP’s description of the things she did not like about chess, it did not seem she understood it very well. For starters, she did not seem like she understood how to develop rooks. Also, she views pawns as simply getting in the way. If that’s how you view pawns, you won’t win many games. Pawns are the heart of the game. I also don’t think that if you just started playing Go, you are able to really offer a worthwhile comparison of the games. Go takes a long and steady commitment.

If you think one of your pawns is in the way, you can sacrifice it. Or you can try to gain space by pushing pawns, and/or use them for outposts for pieces, etc. Pawns have a lot of "jobs" in chess, and there are so many ways to approach a chess game. I don't think the OP fully gets chess.

I will say, despite my limited experience with both, that Go only seems to be "more open" than Chess at an illusory level.

What I mean: Chess and Go both have tons of openings. Chess and Go both have large sets of moves with expected responses. Chess and Go both have ways you are "supposed" to play. I recall watching the entire series of Lee Sedol vs. Alpha Go, and the highly ranked English announcer sometimes played games 20+ moves out, anticipating what each player would do. He was VERY often correct. There were a few notable (and two potentially game-changing) moves that shocked him, but all in all his predictions were very accurate.

I think Go is just as bound to optimal play as Chess, it's just that the potential set of moves is so dramatically larger that the vast majority of people (I suppose potentially ALL humans) don't have the mind-space to learn or remember all the "supposed to"s.

While Go is a great game, I find it an interesting BGG oddity that in this community only does Go seem more popular than Chess. Chess is a highly exacting game requiring years of practice to master, and possibly even some natural ability which cannot be taught. At the higher levels it is not a game of “surprise” and mistakes, but a game of abstract principles and forcing an opponent to bend to your will by deducing necessary moves many moves in advance.

Having played both, to me Go is much more arithmetic and general in its calculation, allowing for slightly more relaxed play styles, more akin to the way Chess was first conceived in the Middle Ages, before changes in the movement rules, especially with regard to the Queen, turned the game from a romantic couples game (as Go remains) into an intense tournament experience.

Go, while fun and competitive at times, seems to me to be like a sophisticated version of the “dot game” popular on restaurant children’s menu (no disparagement intended, really).

Perhaps the above oddity can be explained by the fact that the culture of the BGG community leans towards games that are more strategic than ordinary party games, yet still social enough to enjoy and play somewhat well enough even at first sitting than a game like chess.

I have noticed the same trend in card games, more accessible games such as Spades or the recent game Diamonds being preferred over Bridge, which takes months or years to master.

As someone who has played thousands of games of both and was at one time 4 kyu on KGS, this is hilariously wrong as a description of Go. Forcing players to do things they don't want to is at least as big a part of Go as it is of Chess. The entire idea of sente/gote is about trying to take the initiative away from the opponent and force them to respond to your moves.

Go is demonstrably more strategic than Chess, both in the sense that the skill difference between the strongest Go player and a beginner is greater than the skill difference between the strongest Chess player and a beginner, and also in the sense that it entirely possible to make tactically advantageous but strategically disastrous moves in Go but not in Chess, because the board is large enough for there to be a distinction between local position and whole-board position.

It's true. I'm a casual chess player. But you'll notice I wasn't talking about strategies at that point but the mechanics of the game. How it's set up and how the pawns which have limited movement are placed in front of pieces that have wider range of movement. I meant that I prefer in Go having no pieces on the board at the start and the freedom of placing pieces anywhere on the board instead of in 2 ridgid lines with the back pieces confined by the front ones.

I deliberately kept strategy out of my post as much as possible because I've seen the arguments people have concerning Go and Chess strategies and as far as I'm concerned they're 2 different games with 2 different objectives and 2 different strategy styles. Playing Go like Chess wouldn't work and vice versa. And like you say I'm a Go newbie so I'm not familiar enough with it yet to lecture about strategies. I even avoided the word depth Lol

Go is demonstrably more strategic than Chess, both in the sense that the skill difference between the strongest Go player and a beginner is greater than the skill difference between the strongest Chess player and a beginner, and also in the sense that it entirely possible to make tactically advantageous but strategically disastrous moves in Go but not in Chess, because the board is large enough for there to be a distinction between local position and whole-board position.

You can do this in chess too. Though the usual thing, as a teaching thing, is to first learn how to make tactically disadvantageous but strategically adventageous moves. People actually make tactically advantageous and strategically disadvantageous moves in chess all the time, but we mostly call them mistakes and bad play and even ruder things when we are trying to teach our students to stop doing them.

I'm a much better chess player than I am a go player, and that is the only reason I like chess more. Wish I had known about Go when I was a kid, but it wasn't played anywhere I was.

I dunno. When I read the OP’s description of the things she did not like about chess, it did not seem she understood it very well. For starters, she did not seem like she understood how to develop rooks. Also, she views pawns as simply getting in the way. If that’s how you view pawns, you won’t win many games. Pawns are the heart of the game. I also don’t think that if you just started playing Go, you are able to really offer a worthwhile comparison of the games. Go takes a long and steady commitment.

I was thinking the same thing, but thought I'd leave it alone as ultimately the reason's for preference likely won't really matter to the OP.

After reading the OP's understanding of Chess, I was thinking if that's how I viewed the game I wouldn't like it much either. I pretty much disagree with most issues she raised though and thought them more based on lack of experience or understanding than issues with the game (But to each their own).

I personally prefer Chess over Go but they are both fantastic games for what they do. Go does have the advantage of building in handicaps though, which is probably the biggest reason I don't play more Chess (Skill disparity)

Ah yes, this is a gaming archetype I've become familiar with since joining this site. A lot of people out there, I've found, don't play games for the same reasons I do. They play games to experience a sense of control over themselves and their lives. If they don't get that feeling, they won't like the game. This is the source of, for example, Eurogamer rage against thematic games. Finding chess stifling while go is liberating seems to confirm this line of thought. Honestly, there needs to be an "satisfies need for control" category on appropriate games, just like we have "sports" or "worker placement" categories now.

Why for this life there's no man smart enough, life's too short for learning every trick and bluff.

jumbit wrote:

Ah yes, this is a gaming archetype I've become familiar with since joining this site. A lot of people out there, I've found, don't play games for the same reasons I do. They play games to experience a sense of control over themselves and their lives. If they don't get that feeling, they won't like the game. This is the source of, for example, Eurogamer rage against thematic games. Finding chess stifling while go is liberating seems to confirm this line of thought. Honestly, there needs to be an "satisfies need for control" category on appropriate games, just like we have "sports" or "worker placement" categories now.

Way to go with projecting a pet theory into a totally unrelated thread.

"It's like trying to hold water in your hands and plugging leaks one stone at a time."

Does that sound anything like a game that satisfies a need for control?

Of course, it could be argued that any combinatorial game provides the player with more "control" than a non-combinatorial game, but how that ties in with a stated preference for Go over chess is a mystery to me.

In any case, Go is a game of back and forth, compromise and balance. It's very difficult to stake a claim to anything, and I'd say it is very far removed from a typical middle-weight Euro that lets you do whatever you like on your own personal puzzle.

On an unrelated note, givemeaname, you might also enjoy Xiang Qi - it feels like chess with a more open start, and I find it quite satisfying for that reason.

Ah yes, this is a gaming archetype I've become familiar with since joining this site. A lot of people out there, I've found, don't play games for the same reasons I do. They play games to experience a sense of control over themselves and their lives. If they don't get that feeling, they won't like the game. This is the source of, for example, Eurogamer rage against thematic games. Finding chess stifling while go is liberating seems to confirm this line of thought. Honestly, there needs to be an "satisfies need for control" category on appropriate games, just like we have "sports" or "worker placement" categories now.

You did catch that I play Chess too right? That I have since I was little? I play other games too you know. Backgammon, Mancala, Draughts, Mah jong lots of different abstracts. I even made a Senet game once. I enjoy it but again the set up just sucks. Just this birthday my sister gave me a reversi set which I've played a few times since. I don't just play abstracts though. I play thematic games, euros, cards, computer games I even play Dungeons and Dragons on occasion. Games are my hobby. It's why I'm even on this site to begin with and maybe enjoying boardgames so much at the age of 28 is weird but please don't diagnose me with control issue because I find the mechanics of Go more enjoyable and yes less restrictive than chess.

Ah yes, this is a gaming archetype I've become familiar with since joining this site. A lot of people out there, I've found, don't play games for the same reasons I do. They play games to experience a sense of control over themselves and their lives. If they don't get that feeling, they won't like the game. This is the source of, for example, Eurogamer rage against thematic games. Finding chess stifling while go is liberating seems to confirm this line of thought. Honestly, there needs to be an "satisfies need for control" category on appropriate games, just like we have "sports" or "worker placement" categories now.

Way to go with projecting a pet theory into a totally unrelated thread.

"It's like trying to hold water in your hands and plugging leaks one stone at a time."

Does that sound anything like a game that satisfies a need for control?

Of course, it could be argued that any combinatorial game provides the player with more "control" than a non-combinatorial game, but how that ties in with a stated preference for Go over chess is a mystery to me.

In any case, Go is a game of back and forth, compromise and balance. It's very difficult to stake a claim to anything, and I'd say it is very far removed from a typical middle-weight Euro that lets you do whatever you like on your own personal puzzle.

On an unrelated note, givemeaname, you might also enjoy Xiang Qi - it feels like chess with a more open start, and I find it quite satisfying for that reason.

Go is demonstrably more strategic than Chess, both in the sense that the skill difference between the strongest Go player and a beginner is greater than the skill difference between the strongest Chess player and a beginner, and also in the sense that it entirely possible to make tactically advantageous but strategically disastrous moves in Go but not in Chess, because the board is large enough for there to be a distinction between local position and whole-board position.

Wilhelm Steinitz became world champion, and started a revolution in chess thought, because his opponents made tactically advantageous but strategically disastrous moves. He often put himself in tactically difficult, even ludicrous, positions, to prove his theory that the accumulation of small long-term advantages was more important. So I'm not sure what what you mean there.

Ah yes, this is a gaming archetype I've become familiar with since joining this site. A lot of people out there, I've found, don't play games for the same reasons I do. They play games to experience a sense of control over themselves and their lives. If they don't get that feeling, they won't like the game. This is the source of, for example, Eurogamer rage against thematic games. Finding chess stifling while go is liberating seems to confirm this line of thought. Honestly, there needs to be an "satisfies need for control" category on appropriate games, just like we have "sports" or "worker placement" categories now.

This makes no sense to me. You have the same "control" in Go and in Chess. They're both highly interactive competitive games with no randomness or hidden info in which you're alternating moves with your opponent. Both also include capturing. You seem to have some strange belief that Go is a "care bear" type game or something, in which players cannot attack or damage each other. (Yet surely you know that this is not the case. But I'm not sure how else to interpret your strange psychoanalysis of "eurogamer rage"...)

FWIW I enjoy Chess fine, but don't play it often. I love Shogi, however. The drop rule makes Shogi stand out from other members of the Chess family for me and adds entirely new kinds of strategy and tactics.

I also love Go. Go and Shogi are my two highest rated and most played games.

The unusually excellent handicap system of Go is a big advantage of Go.

While Go is a great game, I find it an interesting BGG oddity that in this community only does Go seem more popular than Chess. Chess is a highly exacting game requiring years of practice to master, and possibly even some natural ability which cannot be taught. At the higher levels it is not a game of “surprise” and mistakes, but a game of abstract principles and forcing an opponent to bend to your will by deducing necessary moves many moves in advance.

The emboldened bit is precisely what I don't really enjoy about Chess and one reason I prefer Go over Chess. That same kind of precise planning out of future possibilities that is so essential in Chess is simply not possible in Go. A different kind of, almost intuitive thought process is needed in Go.

I also like that Go has a build in way of handicapping stronger players to allow them to match up with weaker players.

Ah yes, this is a gaming archetype I've become familiar with since joining this site. A lot of people out there, I've found, don't play games for the same reasons I do. They play games to experience a sense of control over themselves and their lives. If they don't get that feeling, they won't like the game. This is the source of, for example, Eurogamer rage against thematic games. Finding chess stifling while go is liberating seems to confirm this line of thought. Honestly, there needs to be an "satisfies need for control" category on appropriate games, just like we have "sports" or "worker placement" categories now.

I don't much like so-called "thematic" games because in my personal experience, they privilege "colour" and "experience" over interesting decisions: theme doesn't interest me much when there doesn't seem to be very much game there for me. It's nothing to do with "control" - unless by "control" you mean "being able to make intellectually satisfying decisions that affect the flow and outcome of the game in a meaningful way" - but then that, to me, is the essence of enjoyable gaming.

Ah yes, this is a gaming archetype I've become familiar with since joining this site. A lot of people out there, I've found, don't play games for the same reasons I do. They play games to experience a sense of control over themselves and their lives. If they don't get that feeling, they won't like the game. This is the source of, for example, Eurogamer rage against thematic games. Finding chess stifling while go is liberating seems to confirm this line of thought. Honestly, there needs to be an "satisfies need for control" category on appropriate games, just like we have "sports" or "worker placement" categories now.

You did catch that I play Chess too right? That I have since I was little? I play other games too you know. Backgammon, Mancala, Draughts, Mah jong lots of different abstracts. I even made a Senet game once. I enjoy it but again the set up just sucks. Just this birthday my sister gave me a reversi set which I've played a few times since. I don't just play abstracts though. I play thematic games, euros, cards, computer games I even play Dungeons and Dragons on occasion. Games are my hobby. It's why I'm even on this site to begin with and maybe enjoying boardgames so much at the age of 28 is weird but please don't diagnose me with control issue because I find the mechanics of Go more enjoyable and yes less restrictive than chess.

Don't mind him Emily, we're mostly a friendly bunch but some folks like to pontificate on their profound gaming theories.

Ah yes, this is a gaming archetype I've become familiar with since joining this site. A lot of people out there, I've found, don't play games for the same reasons I do. They play games to experience a sense of control over themselves and their lives. If they don't get that feeling, they won't like the game. This is the source of, for example, Eurogamer rage against thematic games. Finding chess stifling while go is liberating seems to confirm this line of thought. Honestly, there needs to be an "satisfies need for control" category on appropriate games, just like we have "sports" or "worker placement" categories now.

Hilarious pop psychology dude. I play games because I like to have fun, I like the intellectual challenge, I like the immersiveness, I like tactical and strategic puzzles. My favorite games these days are Euros because they offer smooth but challenging mechanics but I feel no "rage" against thematic games. On the contrary, I own quite a few.